Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island - Page 9

NoBozo · 03-10-2010, 07:22 PM

Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

Pineedles · 03-10-2010, 08:31 PM

This trial will take its own course. BWI levels now or old DWI percentages, reasonable or unreasonable speed, who was the Cappy or not, may or may not be brought before the jury.

As an example for all to see, it will be an eye opener hopefully!

Slowly but surely we are being shown that one's own behavior must be accounted for. The age of "It's not my fault" will hopefully be shown to be an unacceptable reason for unacceptable behavior. I am not convicting anyone with this statement, only saying that there was fault in this incident, and someone needs to take the responsibilty. Who do you think is responsible?

Mr. V · 03-10-2010, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishoot308

What if she's innocent...

Hello, OJ.

My point is that a person could be adjudged NOT GUILTY of a crime, yet still be found substantially liable in tort.

Nothing hurts the rich like taking away their money: the best punishment.

Don't just settle for the insurance money: that is painless.

Sieze their assets, go for the jugular.

Let's just hope the claimants don't blow the statute of limitations.

No, I'm not angling for the job: I'm a divorce lawyer (although in my field have an affinity for the jugular).

ApS · 03-11-2010, 09:05 AM

(with apologies to Sen. John Edwards)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Quote from the Fox News article:

"...when her 37-foot speed boat crashed into a ledge"...

I'm surprised they could find an impartial jury in Laconia.

From the Concord Monitor:

Quote:

"...when she crashed her 37-foot performance boat off Diamond Island..."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...NTPAGE/3100348

NoBozo · 03-11-2010, 10:56 AM

I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water.

Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering.

It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

Just Sold · 03-11-2010, 11:02 AM

The defense's expert witness from JurisPro Expert Witness Directory's web site. http://www.jurispro.com/CaptainRobertCronin He is supposed to be testifying today.

Northeast Watercraft Reconstruction Specialists investigates and reconstructs pleasure craft, personal watercraft and near coastal commercial collisions. These are the types of vessels the staff at NeWARS operate and are experts in and around. This allows NeWARS to provide the level of expertise expected in a watercraft reconstruction investigation.
The NeWARS professional's has over thirty-five years of law enforcement experience and equivalent sea time, backed by a skilled technical staff that can investigate, analyze and reconstruct a watercraft collision and present the findings in court.
Founder and lead investigator Robert J. Cronin is a USCG licensed Master with over twent-five years of full time law enforcement experience. Mr. Cronin has investigated over 700 collisions of various types ranging from industrial vehicle fatalities to his specialty of watercraft collision investigaton. Mr. Cronin is also a watercraft accident reconstruction training facilitor and instructor.
NeWARS is a Newburyport MA based company and is available to travel as required.
Come visit us at WWW.newars.com or Email Captain Robert Cronin at specialist@newars.com

Resume: http://www.jurispro.com/files/docume...912-resume.pdf

Mink Islander · 03-11-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water.

Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering.

It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

Comparing what happened here to dinging your prop? Really? So we should think about other drunk drivers the same way? After all, who hasn't had a fender bender when totally sober in broad daylight? So when a drunk mangles their car on a dark rainy night and kills a passenger, in your apologist view, that's no big deal and not a crime? Could happen to any of us so why blame them. Right? I wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drunk killed someone in your family. Just wondering.

Bear Islander · 03-11-2010, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water.

Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering.

It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

This is not at all like "He who has not sinned..". I suspect that the vast majority of fatal accidents could have benefited by someone being 30 yards to the right.

I have dinged quite a few props in 27 years on the lake but they were ALL at headway speed trying to get in or out of shallow water. What we are talking about here is hitting an ISLAND at a pretty good speed. Not clipping a submerged rock. Apples and Oranges.

Newbiesaukee · 03-11-2010, 01:20 PM

Certainly I have not always been perfect piloting my boat...but tragic events such as we are discussing do serve to remind us the tremendous responsiblity we assume when we get behind the wheel...boat or car. Terrible things can happen to anybody, all we can do is to mitigate risk. Not drinking and driving, paying attention to weather conditions, etc are ways to minimize the chances that tragic events can occur. Our actions do have consequences.

alsadad · 03-11-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

Of course, we could go back to the day before yesterday, when it wasn’t unheard of for a drunk driver to face reduced criminal charges, or no charges at all, in the death or injury of another person, precisely because he was drunk. But I certainly don’t want to go back to that.

And as for a .12 BAC, if I’m driving on Moultonborough Neck Road, or some similar two-lane, twisting, turning road, late at night and I spy the headlights of another vehicle driving toward me, I know that I’d prefer that person was sober, regardless of whether he thinks that .12 will not lead to significant impairment. The same goes for waterways.

LIforrelaxin · 03-11-2010, 04:12 PM

Folks, everyone is throwing out conjectures and statements here. What we all have to understand and realize is that everything is based on circumstances and the facts behind them. If Ms. Blizzard is convicted then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show, she was negligent. Is she is not guilty then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show that she was not negligent. Either way what we really need to do right now is wait and see what all the facts are. Through following the case in the media we should be able to do that. But lets not argue over weather someone is drunk or impaired at BAC .12 or not... The fact is that is where her BAC was and the law says she was drunk. End of that story. Now listen to the rest of the facts in the case.

People need to remember we can all talk and bicker about this case and in the end it really doesn't matter to us. However there is a family who has lost a daughter, one that had a daughter injured, and one that could loose a daughter to jail.....report and talk about facts please not conjecture.

ishoot308 · 03-11-2010, 04:14 PM

Hello Mr Sokolove;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I'm a divorce lawyer (although in my field have an affinity for the jugular).

That pretty much answers my question.

Thanks!

Dan

NoBozo · 03-11-2010, 07:25 PM

Lets explore...and define this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

The Alternative is Deliberate.

MY guess is the former. NB

PennyPenny · 03-11-2010, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

LIforrelaxin · 03-11-2010, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

I am sure that the jury has been given instructions not to talk about the case with anyone, in addition to that they are also told to stay away from all media of any type that could influence their opinion on the trial. That would include this forum.....

Pineedles · 03-11-2010, 07:39 PM

I am sure that the judge's charge to the jury was clear.

NoBozo · 03-11-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

My question was weather anyone....ie a Citizen, was sitting in the courtroom as an Observer NOT as a Juror. NB

tis · 03-11-2010, 07:40 PM

And I am sure that those on the jury don't even know about this forum. If they knew anything about the case, they wouldn't be picked and if they read this forum, they couldn't miss reading SOMETHING about it.

NoBozo · 03-11-2010, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

And I am sure that those on the jury don't even know about this forum. If they knew anything about the case, they wouldn't be picked and if they read this forum, they couldn't miss reading SOMETHING about it.

Do ya think.??

NB

PennyPenny · 03-11-2010, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

My question was weather anyone....ie a Citizen, was sitting in the courtroom as an Observer NOT as a Juror. NB

I think it would be very interesting to be an observer. Didn't mean to offend you. Either way it is still a sad ending.

NoBozo · 03-11-2010, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

I think it would be very interesting to be an observer. Didn't mean to offend you. Either way it is still a sad ending.

No offence taken Penny. NB

Mink Islander · 03-11-2010, 08:15 PM

getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness.

As an aside, this past Sunday night two recent graduates of Norwell High school, home for spring break, (both 18) were travelling down a road very near my house. Both were drunk. The driver lost control on a curve where the speed limit is 25 and hit a tree -- killing the passenger -- his best friend -- while he walked away with only scratches. In jail and charged with drunk driving and involuntary manslaughter. Chillingly familiar tale in only a slightly different context. Two lives ruined. Two families grieving.

There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

ApS · 03-11-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

"...Either way what we really need to do right now is wait and see what all the facts are..."

Facts can be sealed from all further inquiry.

Evidence can be excluded for reasons unrelated to fact.

In other words, this legal system won't let us know the facts!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

"...She could beat this rap..."

Agreed—she could, indeed.

As an attorney, you know that the defense expert's testimony will be carefully crafted to contradict Lt. Dunleavey's testimony. A defense expert (such as Captain Robert J. Cronin) can charge $10,000 for his useful crafting of words.

(And that's $10,000 per day!)

LIforrelaxin · 03-11-2010, 08:52 PM

So here are some Articles after googling "Erica Blizzard Trial"

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...95/1298/UPDATE

What I found most interesting in this article, is that Ms. Shinopolus, was also legally drunk but yet testified that she only had a beer and two mixed drinks over 4 hours leading up to the crash. Of course she also according to this article states that she remembers nothing of the crash.

Here are some other well written articles:

http://wbztv.com/wireapnewsma/Surviv...2.1553781.html

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...template=page2

Take the time to read what is out there from a simple google search... it is all interesting to digest. But the other thing I have noted about all this information is you definitely need to digest it. And understand what is involved here. I wish I could have take the time to go to this trial, to hear all the testimony but I am making do with what I can get from the media. And so far I have convinced my self of several things based on the facts... Not on conjecture or speculation.... The facts are there, in between the line of BS the reporters fill the page with you just have to look....

But as I said in an early post I am not going to put anything out there until this is all over and I have digested as much as I can.

The only thing I will say at this moment is I am disappointed with the judge. It appears that while everyone else involved in the trial went and viewed the wreckage Ms. Blizzard was allowed to stay behind. I believe that the jury needed to see Ms. Blizzards reactions to the wreckage, which she apparently has never had to face.

LIforrelaxin · 03-11-2010, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness.

There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

MI,

I don't disagree with you. Talking about this information is good. However people are passing judgment before having all the facts before them. If there is only things I have realized about forums it is that they tend to become heated debates sometime based upon feelings. Instead of solid debates based on facts. When you are dealing with things involving the deceased and someones future you must make sure that you deal with facts. Because those people have family and friends, some of whom have already spoken up here. We need to respect them and the fact that they may see these posts.

May main point still is, don't put comments out there just to put comments out there. Back your statements by facts, make sure your not speculating because of something you have heard through the grape vine.

Ok I seriously need to get off my soap box!!!!!!!

secondcurve · 03-11-2010, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

MI,

I don't disagree with you. Talking about this information is good. However people are passing judgment before having all the facts before them. If there is only things I have realized about forums it is that they tend to become heated debates sometime based upon feelings. Instead of solid debates based on facts. When you are dealing with things involving the deceased and someones future you must make sure that you deal with facts. Because those people have family and friends, some of whom have already spoken up here. We need to respect them and the fact that they may see these posts.

May main point still is, don't put comments out there just to put comments out there. Back your statements by facts, make sure your not speculating because of something you have heard through the grape vine.

Ok I seriously need to get off my soap box!!!!!!!

The facts are simple:

1)EB's friend boarded the boat and she is now dead;

2)EB was legally drunk when the accident occurred;

3)The boat EB was piloting was traveling too fast for the conditions/her ability to control the craft;

It is a sad situation and I don't think that a jail sentence is the answer. However, I am offended that she has pleaded innocent. I think a better alternative would have been to admit quilt and ask for forgiveness from the court/families involved and I think that forgiveness would have been granted. Instead we are wasting tax payer funds on this trial. EB could have taken the high road and become a crusader in the schools and boater safety courses to try and educate people about the perils of drinking and operating a boat. Instead, she has hired a slick attorney who is attempting to free her on a technicality.

LIforrelaxin · 03-11-2010, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

It is a sad situation and I don't think that a jail sentence is the answer. However, I am offended that she has pleaded innocent. I think a better alternative would have been to admit quilt and ask for forgiveness from the court/families involved and I think that forgiveness would have been granted. Instead we are wasting tax payer funds on this trial. EB could have taken the high road and become a crusader in the schools and boater safety courses to try and educate people about the perils of drinking and operating a boat. Instead, she has hired a slick attorney who is attempting to free her on a technicality.

SC,

This is indeed the biggest thing I think people are missing here, and that is a fight for presumed innocence. Which is really what this trial is all about. It is only do to family financial resources that this trial came about. If this had been any regular Joe, I indeed believe the outcome would have been a guilty plead, with some minimal restitution.

However the facts are having their day in the court, and the story is getting told, I only hope people pay attention to the facts and take the time to digest the story and get the entire picture. The entire picture is understanding the circumstances of what happened and how it happened. Within this understanding is also the truth about what really brought this tragedy to about.

This incident can be used promote all kinds of things depending on how you depict the situation. But the truth is that the facts will show the situation for what it is, and what it is and isn't related too......

Mr. V · 03-12-2010, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Hello Mr Sokolove;

That pretty much answers my question.

Thanks!

Dan

What question?

"What if she's innocent?"

Nobody is "innocent," baby.

Nobody.

SteveA · 03-12-2010, 06:34 AM

I wonder if this will turn out to be a basis for an appeal from either side.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...892/-1/CITNEWS

Looks like the paper messed up.

chipj29 · 03-12-2010, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

SC,

This is indeed the biggest thing I think people are missing here, and that is a fight for presumed innocence. Which is really what this trial is all about. It is only do to family financial resources that this trial came about. If this had been any regular Joe, I indeed believe the outcome would have been a guilty plead, with some minimal restitution.
However the facts are having their day in the court, and the story is getting told, I only hope people pay attention to the facts and take the time to digest the story and get the entire picture. The entire picture is understanding the circumstances of what happened and how it happened. Within this understanding is also the truth about what really brought this tragedy to about.

This incident can be used promote all kinds of things depending on how you depict the situation. But the truth is that the facts will show the situation for what it is, and what it is and isn't related too......

I completely disagree with your statement that I bolded above. I don't have the statistics to back up my assertion, but I don't think that it is true that a "regular Joe" would plead guilty just because he was not rich. I can't speak from experience, as I have never been arrested. But if I was arrested for something, and believed that I was innocent (Ms. Blizzard states that she had 3 or 4 drinks in the 4 hours prior to the crash), I would fight it with every ounce of my being. No matter how much $$.

Happy Gourmand · 03-12-2010, 08:28 AM

But the fact of the matter is..... the only place the facts are coming out in in the courtroom. I'm old enough and like to think I'm wise enough to take "facts" reported by the media with a grain of salt. Conjecture, speculation and heresay will have no bearing on the outcome of this case. I don't know the facts in this case, and, most likely, neither do most of you. I am confident that justice will be served. Some of us will agree with the outcome, some of us won't.
Either way, my thoughts and prayers are with all of the families affected by this tragic situation. Their lives will never be the same.

LIforrelaxin · 03-12-2010, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveA

I wonder if this will turn out to be a basis for an appeal from either side.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...892/-1/CITNEWS

Looks like the paper messed up.

Never having really paid attention to cases that end up in appeals I would have no idea.... Although definitely not fair to the jury who deserves the right to not have their photographs published... I can't really see the harm to the out come of the trial. The identity of those on a Jury for a trial become public knowledge in the end as part of the court documents anyways doesn't it?

Although I guess having said that the one thing this could give grounds for is that with the identities know through the photograph, the are more open to encounters outside the court room making jury tampering a bigger concern....

Hummm interesting stuff....

jmen24 · 03-12-2010, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Never having really paid attention to cases that end up in appeals I would have no idea.... Although definitely not fair to the jury who deserves the right to not have their photographs published... I can't really see the harm to the out come of the trial. The identity of those on a Jury for a trial become public knowledge in the end as part of the court documents anyways doesn't it?

Although I guess having said that the one thing this could give grounds for is that with the identities know through the photograph, the are more open to encounters outside the court room making jury tampering a bigger concern....

Hummm interesting stuff....

Yes, the trial I sat on as a jurer was based upon an issue in the Laconia area and my name could be found in the article regarding its outcome (I did not give an interview, so I did not understand the reason, but anyway). I do not see an issue or a case of appeal for the jurers faces being published. Now if some intimidation is used because of this (and this would be the only reason that it should not have happened during the trial), than that would be a different story, but I would think that to be very unlikely situation given the parties involved.

fatlazyless · 03-12-2010, 12:25 PM

Back on June 15, 2008, when this Diamond Island tragedy occurred, there were newspaper reports that the Father's Day prank was all about setting up, in the Governor's Island yard, some life-size, stand-alone, silhouette cardboard photos of President George W Bush with Dad's photo attached over the president's face. It was just a fun type of a family prank.

So, let's blame the whole mess on Bush.....he caused it!

......

Today's March 12 www.cmonitor.com has a 12:47-pm update on today's Friday trial hearing.

Dave R · 03-12-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

I don't know the facts in this case, and, most likely, neither do most of you. I am confident that justice will be served.

I know enough facts to know that a person died due to the negligence of the person at the helm of that boat on that night. The only fact that has yet to be proven is who was actually at the helm. It does not matter if the person was drunk or sober, or if they were going 10 MPH or 50 MPH, you can't crash a boat into an island at night with enough force to kill someone, and not be criminally negligent.

IMO, all the prosecution needs to prove is who was at the helm. The rest of the unkown (to me) facts are simply supporting evidence that might alter the punishment, assuming the guilty party is not also the victim.

Phantom · 03-12-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

all about setting up, in the Governor's Island yard, some life-size, stand-alone, silhouette .

Part of the problem then ..... Cause Dad doesn't live on Govenor's Island
.
.
.

SIKSUKR · 03-12-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

I know enough facts to know that a person died due to the negligence of the person at the helm of that boat on that night. It does not matter if the person was drunk or sober, or if they were going 10 MPH or 50 MPH, you can't crash a boat into an island at night with enough force to kill someone, and not be criminally negligent.

IMO, all the prosecution needs to prove is who was at the helm. The rest of the unkown (to me) facts are simply supporting evidence that might alter the punishment, assuming the guilty party is not also the victim.

I've been staying quiet here reading these posts because I was an aquaintance of Erica and friend of Steph.
I've always thought your posts were fair and thoughtfull.
But wow Dave you know enough of the facts to state that even if she was sober and going 10 mph that she should be criminally neglegent. I guess so because you said you know enough of the facts already not even sitting on the jury! Sure wouldn't want you on my jury. So you know that there was nothing mechanical wrong with the boat and if there was she should still be criminally neglegent?
So then if your driving down the road with a passenger in the car and something occurs out of your control and you crash and kill your best friend then you should be held criminally neglegent reguardless? I'm not saying that is the case here but the trial is still in session.
I'm not here to stick up for Erica and don't like what I'm hearing from the trial up to now but this kind of "lynch em right now" attitude is downright scary.

LIforrelaxin · 03-12-2010, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I've been staying quiet here reading these posts because I was an aquaintance of Erica and friend of Steph.
I've always thought your posts were fair and thoughtfull.
But wow Dave you know enough of the facts to state that even if she was sober and going 10 mph that she should be criminally neglegent. I guess so because you said you know enough of the facts already not even sitting on the jury! Sure wouldn't want you on my jury. So you know that there was nothing mechanical wrong with the boat and if there was she should still be criminally neglegent?
So then if your driving down the road with a passenger in the car and something occurs out of your control and you crash and kill your best friend then you should be held criminally neglegent reguardless? I'm not saying that is the case here but the trial is still in session.
I'm not here to stick up for Erica and don't like what I'm hearing from the trial up to now but this kind of "lynch em right now" attitude is downright scary.

SIKSUKR,

I have been waiting for someone to post something like this. Not the part about be friends and / or acquaintances of the people involved. But rather about that fact that how can we pass judgment until the entire story is told.
What if the defense suddenly finds evidence that something mechanical was wrong, what if evidence is produced that Erica was indeed not the driver, what if, what ifs are plentiful. The issue here is that the entire story needs to be told.

There has been published testimony that has made no sense in this case. They tried to use the throttle positioning after the accident as evidence of something....well the picture shows sure enough one drive is in gear forward one drive is in gear reversed.... both throttles full ahead.... This tells me that someone hit the throttles during or after the collision..... because the boat wouldn't have gone nose first into the wall with the throttles like that....

People need to listen to the facts, listen to what their reasonable minds tell them. I think there will be enough information in the end to come to a reasonable conclusion based on facts, and not conjecture, I really do....

codeman671 · 03-12-2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

what if evidence is produced that Erica was indeed not the driver, what if, what ifs are plentiful. The issue here is that the entire story needs to be told.

I think it certainly would have come out from the two survivors that Erica was not driving the boat if this was the case. Let's face it, if Erica was not driving the boat she would not be the one on trial. If it was Nicole do you think Erica would be covering that up and risking jail time to do so plus huge litigation costs? If it was Stephanie I think it would have come out as well.

Even if there was a mechanical issue, there are enough ways to stop a boat. Throttles, shifters, keys, deadman, etc. Hell, even jump off. Not all of these would be disfunctional at once, if so the boat clearly should not have been on the water and I DOUBT that was the case. It was the captains responsibility to make sure the heading they were traveling was safe and free of obstructions. There were enough electronics, boating experience and knowledge of the lake to avoid the island. Lets face it, even if there was no chip in the chartplotter it still comes down to the pilot, whomever she was.

I feel that Dave was right. An accident happened, someone died, and it was ultimately because of the actions of the driver, alcohol or not. That can be considered negligent homocide, the negligence was hitting an island and killing someone because of the collision. Failure to maintain a proper lookout. I have no opinion on jail time, fines, really don't care as far as that is concerned.

As far as Siksukr, we are not talking about 10mph and sober. It is clear to everyone the boat was going faster than 10. I certainly do not think they were doing 50, the damage does not support it.

secondcurve · 03-12-2010, 06:08 PM

If Erica blizzard wasn't driving the boat her attorney wouldn't have tried to throw out the BAC evidence against her. If there was something mechanically wrong with the boat I think a strong argument can be made that her alcohol impairment contributed to her inability to compensate for the boat's mechanical difficultly. However, it is pretty obvious that this isn't about a mechanical problem.

Yankee · 03-12-2010, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think it certainly would have come out from the two survivors that Erica was not driving the boat if this was the case. Let's face it, if Erica was not driving the boat she would not be the one on trial. If it was Nicole do you think Erica would be covering that up and risking jail time to do so plus huge litigation costs? If it was Stephanie I think it would have come out as well.

Even if there was a mechanical issue, there are enough ways to stop a boat. Throttles, shifters, keys, deadman, etc. Hell, even jump off. Not all of these would be disfunctional at once, if so the boat clearly should not have been on the water and I DOUBT that was the case. It was the captains responsibility to make sure the heading they were traveling was safe and free of obstructions. There were enough electronics, boating experience and knowledge of the lake to avoid the island. Lets face it, even if there was no chip in the chartplotter it still comes down to the pilot, whomever she was.

I feel that Dave was right. An accident happened, someone died, and it was ultimately because of the actions of the driver, alcohol or not. That can be considered negligent homocide, the negligence was hitting an island and killing someone because of the collision. Failure to maintain a proper lookout. I have no opinion on jail time, fines, really don't care as far as that is concerned.

As far as Siksukr, we are not talking about 10mph and sober. It is clear to everyone the boat was going faster than 10. I certainly do not think they were doing 50, the damage does not support it.

I have stayed out of this rather distasteful discussion until now. However, this post is cogent in the regard of this matter. As a customer of Lakeport Marina, I feel terrible for Ms. Blizzard, and the consequencesa that she faces. Please let the legal process come to it's conclusion b4 commenting.

NoBozo · 03-12-2010, 07:54 PM

It's about missing (or hitting) the island by a couple of degrees on a compass course from the starting point. What amazes me is all the Experts here... who have Never navigated a boat under those conditions...yet they are Armchair Experts.

Yea Yea..get me now.

NB

VtSteve · 03-12-2010, 08:01 PM

I know many people aren't seasoned night boaters, some are, most aren't. I was in a situation last year when just before heading home, a fairly dense fog descended over the lake. Not rainy or cold, just very dense fog. My GPS was not getting a proper signal, which is another story for another time

Anyway. There is a large reef about a mile out that ultra safe boaters (me) always go wide around and not cut inside to shore. I've traveled it quite frequently, but when I could see the lighted buoy. I could make out one faint light, but not the other. I slowed to headway speed and fixed on the light I could see. The GPS came back on finally, so I could see my tracks. Good thing. I was only about 100 yards from the Inside of the buoy I was to be Outside of

I putted around to it, and the next outside marker and headed around the proper wide route.

If I had been on plane using my instincts, I'd probably have ground on the reef. My mind told me I did not know where I was exactly at that point, so I slowed to a crawl. Sometimes, it doesn't take drinking to cloud judgment (I had not and was not drinking). Sometimes all it takes is a carefree attitude and over confidence. Perhaps distractions of others. It happens. I'm pretty anal about how I boat, I always have a lookout, and Never assume I know exactly where I am. I look for landmarks, lights, points of reference. It's scary in the fog, and nobody should be out bounding about on the water in it.

Let's leave the legislative crap to those that have nothing else better to do than make silly arguments. This is boating 101 we're witnessing here, unfortunately, in a courtroom setting. It's also so sad for the parties involved. People not involved should take heed and learn from this, not throw grenades and kick in the darkness.

Seaplane Pilot · 03-12-2010, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

Even if there was a mechanical issue, there are enough ways to stop a boat. Throttles, shifters, keys, deadman, etc. Hell, even jump off.

I'm not taking sides, nor am I picking on you, Codeman. However, this is very similar to the Toyota issues we're seeing all over the news now. Why did that guy in San Diego call 911 this week when his car was traveling 90+mph and he claimed could not stop it? First thing I thought of was why he didn't put it in neutral or shut it off? Bleep happens and everyone reacts differently under crisis circumstances.

I don't know anyone involved personally, but I see a lynch-mob attitude forming already. If she's found not guilty by a jury of her peers, the consensus will be that she bought her verdict, regardless of the facts in the case. If she's found guilty, then there will be some serious gloating by a certain lobbying group and their ilk. It's a bad situation, regardless of the outcome.

codeman671 · 03-12-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seaplane pilot

I'm not taking sides, nor am I picking on you, Codeman. However, this is very similar to the Toyota issues we're seeing all over the news now. Why did that guy in San Diego call 911 this week when his car was traveling 90+mph and he claimed could not stop it? First thing I thought of was why he didn't put it in neutral or shut it off? Bleep happens and everyone reacts differently under crisis circumstances.

I don't know anyone involved personally, but I see a lynch-mob attitude forming already. If she's found not guilty by a jury of her peers, the consensus will be that she bought her verdict, regardless of the facts in the case. If she's found guilty, then there will be some serious gloating by a certain lobbying group and their ilk. It's a bad situation, regardless of the outcome.

The Toyota problem is a widespread epidemic due to poorly manufactured products or inferior components. This is ONE case. Has anyone heard of other Formula's running out of control frequently??? If someone can't figure out how to stop their car in an emergency they need to go back to driving school. Neutral, a key switch, or slam it into reverse. People do react differently under extreme situations, I agree. Heading straight into an island, not even at an angle, tells a different story. IMO a story of failure to pay attention, failure to maintain a proper lookout. We are not talking about a few degrees on a compass, a few degree difference to avoid would have started a change of course way before the island.

NB, I have operated under severe weather conditions. I was on the lake that night, coming back from Wolfeboro coincidently but not at 2am. It was a nasty night. Were you? Have you?

I am not part of a lynch mob, I have no beef in this. I did not know any of them and I do not have any contempt towards anyone involved. I am against the SL as well and this clearly does not help our case. I am irritated though by some of the lame, irrational excuses people are making about this. The facts seem quite clear for those that wish to open their eyes and ears. BAC was proven, heading/direction of travel was clear based on where the boat was positioned, speed is estimated within a range that makes sense for the damage (and not excessive for night driving although probably too much based on visibility), and the outcome was tragic. Someone was driving the boat, they failed to avoid hitting an innanimate object (in this case an island) and someone died. This person died because of the actions of another. That is negligence.

I agree with innocent until proven guilty, but the base facts of it all are so clear that the driver was clearly guilty to some extent beyond any reasonable doubt. Whether or not she is found guilty of any/all charges as they sit is not my decision, but the outcome was caused by the driver. She is and will pay the price emotionally for the rest of her life. It does not help matters for the family that lost one of their own, and I applaud them for not wanting Erica to go to jail. I feel bad for all involved, no matter what side they are on.

NoBozo · 03-12-2010, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

NB, I have operated under severe weather conditions. I was on the lake that night, coming back from Wolfeboro coincidently but not at 2am. It was a nasty night. Were you? Have you?

Hi Codeman. I was not out on the lake on the night in question. I think your post was mostly well intentioned.

In my case perhaps some of my background would clarify my position. I have sailed offshore and inshore for over 40 years. I have made two passages to Bermuda and return from Newport Rhode island in a 27 foot boat and then a 32 foot boat SOLO in both directions back in 1979 and 1981...Loran was in it's infantsy and GPS was unheard of. I used Celestial Navigation...Sextant and Tables, Dead Reconning, and Loran when it worked..... 24/7. In the larger boat it took 5 days..25 minutes on the outbound.

On the return trip in 1981 I ran in to a storm which lasted about 14 hours....almost all at night while the boat was doing over 7 knots in high seas, rain and spray under heavily reefed sails. The anemometer rarely went below 45 knots for over 5 hours. In the meantime there were boats from the Marion-Bermuda race heading OUTbound toward Bermuda within miles of my northward track. The distance between Newport and Bermuda is 635 miles.

The boat had a wind driven self steering gear. I was sitting at the Nav Station down below broadcasting "Securite..Securite" every few minutes on CH 16 VHF all night to alert other boats of my position. Every few minutes I would leave the cabin and go out on deck to have a look around for boats (and Cruise Ships) running lights.

All turned out well without incident. I didn't have any islands to miss.

So I guess what I'm saying is..I have some experience which allows me to opine on "bad weather navigation". No offence intended here....just my own experience.

Getting by Diamond Island in bad weather is like treading a needle. NB

VtSteve · 03-12-2010, 10:16 PM

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...94/1298/UPDATE

FLL, this one's for you.

Hogwash, but good for questions in the jury's mind.

Mr. V · 03-12-2010, 10:35 PM

The old "blood loss" argument.

Cute.

We'll see if the jury buys it.

Bet they don't ...

EllyPoinster · 03-13-2010, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...94/1298/UPDATE

FLL, this one's for you.

Hogwash, but good for questions in the jury's mind.

The Union Leader has a similar story

Looks like we have a battle of the toxicologists and reasonable doubt.

Mr. V · 03-13-2010, 09:47 AM

The argument of the defense would be laughable, were the matters at hand not so serious.

Now, I know that juries are not supposed to read newspaper articles or talk to people about issues presented at the trial; in theory, it prevents them from considering anything other than what they hear in the courtroom.

But if one of them were to stray from this admonition and spend twenty seconds doing a google search, do you know what they'd find"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_b...lcohol_content

Bam!

Newbiesaukee · 03-13-2010, 12:25 PM

I also tried to investigate this on the internet. The Wiki answer is simplistic and assumes that there is a fixed and unchanged BAC. If this were true, then losing blood would NOT affect BAC. But this is not the real world situation. There are legitimate questions regarding how blood loss and shock could affect BAC. BAC is obviously related to the speed with which alcohol is absorbed into the blood (where it is measured) from the stomach/GI tract. If, for example, a person ingests alcohol and then almost immediately gets into an accident resulting in cardiovascular shock, then the alcohol absorption would be delayed. A blood sample taken very soon after an accident might have a low BAC because the alcohol has not yet been absorbed into the blood and cannot be measured.. As the person recovers, the alcohol is later absorbed so that 3 hours later the BAC is actually HIGHER than at the time of the accident. This kind of argument and data are on the internet. The argument that the defense has used in some of these DUI cases is that even though the later BAC is high, at the time of the accident, the alcohol has not yet entered the bloodstream. Therefore, it had not reached the brain and there was no impairment at the time of the accident even though the BAC well after the accident might be high.

I am not an attorney, I have no personal interest in this case and I agree that we should wait for all the information to be presented and wait for the jury make its statement. The circumstances in the case may well be different.

Even though the defense toxicologist may be a hired gun, a few minutes on the internet can determine she does have real credentials. Whether what she says is true in this particular case is certainly arguable and the prosecution must argue it.

My whole point is that things which seem simple and obvious are not always so. And Wikipedia does have its limitations.

Mr. V · 03-13-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newbiesaukee

My whole point is that things which seem simple and obvious are not always so. And Wikipedia does have its limitations.

Agreed, wiki is far from authoritative.

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

CGI3 · 03-13-2010, 09:37 PM

How come they didn't subpoena the guest check from the restaurant they dined at? Seems like a no brainer to me. From my understanding restaurants have to keep all records for 3 years? Samiam, true?

secondcurve · 03-13-2010, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGI3

How come they didn't subpoena the guest check from the restaurant they dined at? Seems like a no brainer to me. From my understanding restaurants have to keep all records for 3 years? Samiam, true?

Do you think the guest check will tell how much Vodka was poured into each drink? I am pretty sure it varies from bartender to bartender and bar to bar, etc.

partsman · 03-14-2010, 07:07 AM

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

ApS · 03-14-2010, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Agreed, wiki is far from authoritative.

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

Lt. Dunleavey once said (as a less-PC Sergeant) that 80% of Winnipesaukee boaters have alcohol on board. (Not me, though, I'm still trying to remember if full beer cans will float).

I think the flaw in Newbiesaukee's findings is that alcohol is absorbed very quickly in the stomach and all the mucous membranes that alcohol passes by. If Newbiesaukee is correct, (as in the defense's putative "blood-loss" theory), the empty beer cans would support a higher BAC when the BAC is taken later.

And speaking of the bow, The Concord Monitor is showing a photo of the heretofore missing bow section. It shows the "shoebox" manner of Formula fiberglass manufacturing prowess.

Seen along the dark blue parts of the bow are the series of about five fractures that correspond with the concentric rows of fiberglass hull fragments embedded in that granite ledge. (Rows of fragments that can even be seen today).

It's just as well this boat isn't made in aluminum or steel—casualties would have been even worse, and a trial made unnecessary.

Plus, it wouldn't have been just the anchor that struck the cottage that morning, but the whole boat!

Tired of Waiting · 03-14-2010, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

What question?

"What if she's innocent?"

Nobody is "innocent," baby.

Nobody.

And you practice law?

You must be right. I just re-read the U. S. Constitution and supporting documents. They do say " presumption of guilty!!!" How did I miss that before?

ToW

wifi · 03-14-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by partsman

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

How many times do you see a beer can floating by or cans tossed at the side of the road, then done your civic duty and picked them up. I know I do, several times per year. Hardly conclusive of anything other than the cans are there.

Mr. V · 03-14-2010, 01:20 PM

My point: nobody is innocent, but not all are guilty.

It's a matter of semantics.

As for the floating beer cans not being conclusive proof: they don't have to be.

She can be convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence: it happens all the time.

A jury out here just sentenced a guy to death based solely on circumstantial evidence: no DNA, no hair and fiber, no witnesses, no murder weapon: no direct evidence whatsoever.

Doesn't matter: not needed: he had a strong motive (jealousy and revenge) and his cell phone records placed him near the murder scene at the time: that is circumstantial evidence, and it convicted him.

So yeah, the floating beer cans are admissible as circumstantial evidence; it is up to the jury to determine what weight to give them.

FWIW, I think the testimony of the doctor who arrived immediately at the scene and found her slumped over the wheel (coupled to the facts that it is her boat, and her friend claims she wasn't too drunk to operate it) shows she was the driver, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless the jury goes OJ, I foresee the gray bar hotel in her immediate future.

EllyPoinster · 03-14-2010, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

It's perfectly legal to drink in a boat - even if you are driving it. You just can't be legally drunk. But, if I was on the jury, I would seriously doubt that anyone was drinking on a dark, rainy, foggy night.

Newbiesaukee · 03-14-2010, 06:39 PM

One could imagine it might even be negligent to do so on such a night. Is that not part of what this trial is about?

VtSteve · 03-14-2010, 09:29 PM

I missed this one, which perhaps, is the definitive story of this trial, arguments aside.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...NTPAGE/3100348

It confirms several things, even conservatively. The only thing left for the jury is the BUI question. Which is, as many said last year, why their is more than one count charged.

Fact is, there are many existing laws that are very useful in a case like this, and they are using the laws in place at that time to do their duty.

chipj29 · 03-15-2010, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Agreed, wiki is far from authoritative.

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

Either Dr. Rock or his wife told the investigators at some point after the accident that it was common to find trash on the shore of their island property. Take that for what it is worth, but that could place doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Lots of people drink on boats in this day and age. It is perfectly legal. Your passengers can drink all they want, but the operator of the boat has to be sober. Empty (or full) beer cans on a boat (or in the water near the crash site) means nothing. How long were they in the boat? Were they from the day of the accident?

LIforrelaxin · 03-15-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by partsman

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

This is why the beer cans are really inconclusive evidence. They where added to the testimony try and sway the jury to a side, but ultimately they are really no proof of anything, unless they can be shown to have been unopened, or partially consumed. Unfortunately I have not heard an argument either way..All I have heard is that they where present. Hence this was useless information, as I have found most of the testimony in this trial.

In the end if I was on the jury I would be basing my decision based on what I could provide evidence off...

The question for me as to Ms. Blizzards guilt or innocent, has never been based on alcohol, but rather on the conditions of the night, what I would consider safe and prudent operation of the vessel that night, and weather or not I feel the she as the operator was really keeping a dutiful look out or more interested in being with her friends.

As far as punishment in this case, I think the worst punishment may have already been handed out, the question is will any further punishment really accomplish anything..... or is it only being sought for agenda reasoning.

Mink Islander · 03-15-2010, 08:51 AM

I have to admit, I have one here: Drunks driving boats too fast in bad conditions resulting in death and serious injury should be punished. That's why we have laws about both drinking and boating and proper operation of a boat. To me it doesn't really matter whether Erica killed her best friend or some total stranger, she and everyone else who boats need to understand there are consequences to exercising extremely bad judgement when operating a boat (or car for that matter) that results in something as extreme as the death of a passenger. It should serve as warning and in theory a deterrent. That's the idea, anyway.

I'd have much more sympathy for her personally if she had pleaded guilty but perhaps the state wouldn't cut her much of a deal given the strength of their case against her so she's just hoping she gets a better outcome through trial. Can't blame her for that. It is how our system is intended to work.

We should probably know the jury's conclusions this week. I'm not expecting any "OJ Surprise" here.

Sunbeam lodge · 03-15-2010, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

My point: nobody is innocent, but not all are guilty.

It's a matter of semantics.

As for the floating beer cans not being conclusive proof: they don't have to be.

She can be convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence: it happens all the time.

A jury out here just sentenced a guy to death based solely on circumstantial evidence: no DNA, no hair and fiber, no witnesses, no murder weapon: no direct evidence whatsoever.

Doesn't matter: not needed: he had a strong motive (jealousy and revenge) and his cell phone records placed him near the murder scene at the time: that is circumstantial evidence, and it convicted him.

So yeah, the floating beer cans are admissible as circumstantial evidence; it is up to the jury to determine what weight to give them.

FWIW, I think the testimony of the doctor who arrived immediately at the scene and found her slumped over the wheel (coupled to the facts that it is her boat, and her friend claims she wasn't too drunk to operate it) shows she was the driver, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless the jury goes OJ, I foresee the gray bar hotel in her immediate future.

Do Like they do in CSI, get fingerprints off the can, if someones future depends on it.

LIforrelaxin · 03-15-2010, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

I have to admit, I have one here: Drunks driving boats too fast in bad conditions resulting in death and serious injury should be punished. That's why we have laws about both drinking and boating and proper operation of a boat. To me it doesn't really matter whether Erica killed her best friend or some total stranger, she and everyone else who boats need to understand there are consequences to exercising extremely bad judgement when operating a boat (or car for that matter) that results in something as extreme as the death of a passenger. It should serve as warning and in theory a deterrent. That's the idea, anyway.

I'd have much more sympathy for her personally if she had pleaded guilty but perhaps the state wouldn't cut her much of a deal given the strength of their case against her so she's just hoping she gets a better outcome through trial. Can't blame her for that. It is how our system is intended to work.

We should probably know the jury's conclusions this week. I'm not expecting any "OJ Surprise" here.

Agenda's are behind everything MI... Hell even I have an agenda here, with what I am saying and doing... and your right alcohol on a boat needs to be dealt with severly just like it does in a car.

As for sympathy for Ms. Blizzard, well yes more sympathy in my mind as she just accepted guilt. Which of course would have also been accompanied I feel by pleading to a lesser charge and she probably wouldn't be faced with jail time the way she is now. But that was here decision. And she will have to face the consequences... The worst of course I don't think is jail time, should she be found guilty... I believe the far worse punishment for someone like her, is that this trial has taken place in the media. I have relatives and friends from all over New England, and the country asking me about it. I believe that this will negatively effect her family, and their business. How bad is anyone's guess....

If there is an OJ surprise here, I will most likely have lost all faith in the legal system in this country.

As far as the trial is concerned I hope it is handed to the jury the front part of the week, and we do indeed have something before the week is out.

The Winnipsaukee lake community has been haunted by this and a few other horrible issues. Which have had far reaching effects, it is time get by these legal cases which have gained so much attention, out of the way so that the lake can be a place of peacefulness, and relaxation, with out attention to over shadowing events.

ApS · 03-15-2010, 09:29 AM

Subtitled: "Letting a few FACTS get in the way".

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...The only thing left for the jury is the BUI question...Fact is, there are many existing laws that are very useful in a case like this, and they are using the laws in place at that time to do their duty..."

1) Meaning, the law that was to have been amended to consider The Broads (where this crash took place) as a...um...an unlimited "free-zone"?

2) We haven't heard from the Defense's boat-crash reconstructionist.

In the Legal-Defense industry, lawyers will refer to him as a "hired gun" (And that's the polite term—which doesn't include the words "paid" and "liar".

)

3) As to the BUI question, Erica's passenger didn't help out any on the Defense theory of an artificially-elevated BAC:

Quote:

"...As long as I've known her I've never seen her drink a beer," Shinopulos testified..."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

4) As to the "errant" beer cans—could it get any worse than this?

Quote:

"...And Moir said he has a witness who believes the empty beer cans floating near Blizzard’s crashed boat may not have been Blizzard’s, but rather trash from another boat. However, a state witness said yesterday afternoon, investigators found cans of the same kind of beer in the boat’s cabin...In addition, Marine Patrol officers found Bud Light cans, as well as two bottles of vodka, one unopened, in the cabin of the boat..."

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

codeman671 · 03-15-2010, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

Do Like they do in CSI, get fingerprints off the can, if someones future depends on it.

The State Crime Lab is extremely backed up on fingerprinting, although enough time has lapsed between the incident and now that it could have been done. Honestly it may have been done in the background and never brought forth if the evidence was inconclusive. Beer cans sitting in water would not be the best base to fingerprint from.

chipj29 · 03-15-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

The State Crime Lab is extremely backed up on fingerprinting, although enough time has lapsed between the incident and now that it could have been done. Honestly it may have been done in the background and never brought forth if the evidence was inconclusive. Beer cans sitting in water would not be the best base to fingerprint from.

Even if they could pull a fingerprint from a beer can, what would that prove? Did she touch the can when it was bought (however long ago that may have been)? Did she touch the can when it was put on the boat (However long ago that may have been)? Were there fingerprints on an empty beer can-if so, when was it consumed? Last night, last week, last month?
In other words, presence of a beer can means absolutely nothing to this case. Presence of fingerprints on a beer can means nothing to this case.

Too many questions around beer cans, and I would suspect that if brought up, there is insufficient evidence to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tired of Waiting · 03-15-2010, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

My point: nobody is innocent, but not all are guilty.

It's a matter of semantics.

OK, I guess I'll have to accept your strange explanation. You law guys/gals must live in a weird world to have it both ways.

ToW

codeman671 · 03-15-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

Even if they could pull a fingerprint from a beer can, what would that prove? Did she touch the can when it was bought (however long ago that may have been)? Did she touch the can when it was put on the boat (However long ago that may have been)? Were there fingerprints on an empty beer can-if so, when was it consumed? Last night, last week, last month?
In other words, presence of a beer can means absolutely nothing to this case. Presence of fingerprints on a beer can means nothing to this case.

Too many questions around beer cans, and I would suspect that if brought up, there is insufficient evidence to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Definitely agreed. Proving the BAC one way or the other is the important thing, unless they could snag her in a lie. Say a store receipt showing the purchase that day and empties found on site after testifying that no beer was consumed. It is all in how the jury perceives it. With a jury trial the facts dont always have to be there to sway a decision. It is the jurors individual perceptions.

fatlazyless · 03-15-2010, 11:42 AM

Today's March 15 www.cmonitor.com has a brief mid-day report and the defense put a boat accident reconstruction expert witness on the stand this morning, from Newburyport Mass, who testified that the evidence suggests the boat was going 18-20, and not the 30-32 as the Marine Patrol lieutenant testified.

For a 17000-lb, 37 foot boat, powered by twin 425-hp MerCruiser inboard-outboards, going 18-20 most likely would have the boat plowing through the water, as opposed to being up on plane at 30-32, and that would seem to be highly relevant to what happens running into a six foot high, solid granite outcropping. Speed would make a difference, dontcha you thinka?

...any expert incite from the peanut gallery on board here?

robmac · 03-15-2010, 12:14 PM

IMHO,you would think angle and impact height on the bow and the granite ledge would help determine speed relevent to the vessal on plane and or plowing. Now I am no expert but doesn't common sense come into play?

Dave R · 03-15-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Today's March 15 www.cmonitor.com has a brief mid-day report and the defense put a boat accident reconstruction expert witness on the stand this morning, from Newburyport Mass, who testified that the evidence suggests the boat was going 18-20, and not the 30-32 as the Marine Patrol lieutenant testified.

For a 17000-lb, 37 foot boat, powered by twin 425-hp MerCruiser inboard-outboards, going 18-20 most likely would have the boat plowing through the water, as opposed to being up on plane at 30-32, and that would seem to be highly relevant to what happens running into a six foot high, solid granite outcropping. Speed would make a difference, dontcha you thinka?

...any expert incite from the peanut gallery on board here?

Boattest.com has it getting on plane around 15 MPH and weighing 14,400 lbs. I would also say that the death and injuries, combined with a smashed-up boat are a pretty good indication that the speed was too high for the conditions; and that the prosecution should just point that out....

VtSteve · 03-15-2010, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Subtitled: "Letting a few FACTS get in the way".

1) Meaning, the law that was to have been amended to consider The Broads (where this crash took place) as a...um...an unlimited "free-zone"?

2) We haven't heard from the Defense's boat-crash reconstructionist.

I guess we have now. Personally, neither of these so-called accident recontructionists sound very believable. I'm not sure why you continue to do these selective, and extremely partial quotes APS. I haven't let any facts slip in this case that I know of, I've even read all of the innuendo and injected statements of agenda, from you. Roll your eyes all you want skippy, but the state has made their charges based on the laws in force at that time, and they are still very pertinent today. I'm quite sure you know that.

But just to make double sure, we can both examine and compare our own personal positions on this matter. I don't care if the boat was going 18 mph or 25 mph or 33 mph. If it was in that range, it was too fast. If the skipper was impaired, a double whammy should be levied. That's my position, and it's been a consistent one. I gave up hope that you'd ever grow up, but try to be at least a little less disingenuous.

Sorry in advance Don for the tone.

Time to wait out the outcome of this trial.

hazelnut · 03-15-2010, 05:45 PM

This is pretty good journalism huh? What kind of boat and where?

"Closing arguments have wrapped up in the trial of a New Hampshire woman charged with drunkenly piloting her speedboat into a ledge in Lake Winnepesaukee - killing her friend and injuring herself and a passenger."

Love the spelling of Lake Winnipesaukee by the way. Credible journalism at its best.

NoBozo · 03-15-2010, 06:59 PM

I have a deep V boat and there is a speed "Threshhold" if you will. UNTIL the boat reaches a Comfortable speed..just "over the top" on plane..22-23 mph in my case...you are just plowing water. If I feel my speed is excessive ....at that point.. On Top..for whatever reason.. I SLOW down considerably to OFF Plane to maybe 7 mph. There is NO In-Between for an experienced skipper. PLOWING for me is NOT an option. I'm either ON Plane or I'm going 7mph or less.

SO: If she was Plowing..the BOW would be elevated and have struck higher than the top of the granite slab....so the upper part of the bow would have remained Intact and passed over the top of the slab.

My rememberance of the granite slab (Impact point) is a perfectly verticle rectangular slab..now I'm guessing...maybe 15-20 feet across and maybe 5 feet off the water at the top....which was horizontal. It almost seemed to me............it had been placed there by Man....But of course it was not...and she hit it at 90 degrees.

If she had been a few feet either side of that SLAB..she would have ended up ON the island and probably in one piece with only bruises and the boat bottom severely scraped and gouged.

Just my observation. NB

PennyPenny · 03-15-2010, 07:04 PM

I actually met her for the first time at a baby shower on Sunday. She never let out a word or a tear regarding her daughter, Stephanie. She was just happy to be a guest at the baby shower of her great grandson to be. We should all be so humble.

VtSteve · 03-15-2010, 08:54 PM

There's a lot of us parents out here Penny, that feel for them deeply. Hopefully none of us ever experience the loss, but we "know" it would be consuming. It may seem sometimes that the discussion gets too random, too removed from real life. That's not true at all for the most part. I think most of us care, and care quite a bit about loss of life and shattered dreams. Perhaps we care so much is sounds a bit callous, devoid of feeling.

In actuality, we all care about what happens out there, and feel deeply for the loss of life, and the deep grief of parents that will never be able to fill that hole in their hearts. Trust me on this, most of us know this could happen to any of us, our loved ones, our children, ourselves. In a moment's notice life can change. To respect the water is to fear it.

Stephanie's mom must be a very strong woman. I hope I never have to walk in her shoes, none of us does.

LIforrelaxin · 03-15-2010, 10:18 PM

Well hopefully very soon we will be able to put this issue to bed with "official results" of the trial. Not that I don't believe given the out come everyone will have some opinions.... But hopefully by the end of tomorrow if not then Wednesday we will have some word. If the jury takes longer then that then, I will start getting very suspicious of having a hung jury for some reason or another....

ApS · 03-16-2010, 05:14 AM

(Headline by The Citizen).

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Today's March 15 www.cmonitor.com has a brief mid-day report and the defense put a boat accident reconstruction expert witness on the stand this morning, from Newburyport Mass, who testified that the evidence suggests the boat was going 18-20, and not the 30-32 as the Marine Patrol lieutenant testified.

For a 17000-lb, 37 foot boat, powered by twin 425-hp MerCruiser inboard-outboards, going 18-20 most likely would have the boat plowing through the water, as opposed to being up on plane at 30-32, and that would seem to be highly relevant to what happens running into a six foot high, solid granite outcropping. Speed would make a difference, dontcha you thinka?

...any expert incite from the peanut gallery on board here?

1) Check page 2 of this thread for dozens of wrong speculations.

2) I'd previously guessed about 20-MPH+, but even without the hands-on testing that I'd suggested, I'm now agreeing with Lt. Dunleavey. (Certainly more than "the-expert-with-the-briefcase-from-out-of-town").

3) In fair weather, Diamond Island is a near-daily destination of mine—and you can't miss the crash site.

Seen within a week of the crash, the outcropping is closer to 3-feet tall. The scale I'd included appears as the 2nd "attachment" below. The three black bands are placed one foot apart.

You can take a piece of paper and mark the three-foot spacing on it. Place the scale upright against the screen and you can see that it's less than three feet above the waterline shortly after the crash.

The subject boat would still have additional depth below the waterline, as there was a faint scrape on a somewhat-submerged rock.

4) It's true that striking the island 40-feet either way would have spared the boat—and maybe those aboard—but a neighboring cabin can be seen in the background. (This other cabin's roof can be seen at the first "attachment" at the very bottom of this post).

In this next photo, note the clear "ramp" of yard leading directly to it.

5) A too-short anchor line was given as the reason for not waiting-out the weather, but any other anchored boat near Diamond Island's Broads location would have been in peril that night.

(Message: When you're not aware of the weather and caught "out", tie up to a private dock).

6) Although too-late a warning for the defendant—one week after the crash, a Jet-Ski was put out at a mooring nearby.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robmac

IMHO,you would think angle and impact height on the bow and the granite ledge would help determine speed relevent to the vessal on plane and or plowing. Now I am no expert but doesn't common sense come into play?

I think you're onto something...

Note the "concentric rings" previously mentioned in testimony.

At that time, the lowest ring was just two inches below the surface and would correspond to the deepest crack in the bow. I'm not conversant with the "bow-high attitude" of 37' speedboats, but a photo taken from the side of the same model boat—in both "plow" and high-speed modes—would demonstrate a range of speeds that would have made those marks on the granite outcropping.

(For a comparison, see the photo of the cracks in the bow earlier on this page).

BTW: Sgt. David Ouelette (a chatty NHMP officer whom I've had the privilege of meeting) has testified to the alcohol found on board: it includes two bottles of vodka, one of which is a ½-gallon size!

(I've never seen such a big bottle of alcohol !)

(Photo from The Citizen).

Testimony included alcohol detected on the Captain's breath. How much "normally-odorless" vodka would it take to be "detectable"?

The photo VtSteve referred to: (The defendant leaving the courthouse—after the jury found her Guilty).

(Photo from The Concord Monitor).

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

]For what its worth,I also saw the site within a week and the outcropping as you call it it closer to 5 feet.The photo you posted gives you the scale you seek.The windows would be about 3 feet high based on a 7 foot wall that they are in. From my observation the highest point is at least 50% taller than the windows.

The windows are not in the same plane as the struck boulder; however, the added "lighthouse" is—almost. (Making it a very tall "lighthouse" !)

This photo included the "lighthouse"—an anonymous and tasteless addition—added in 2009. Even a year later, the embedded shreds of fiberglass still remain in the boulder.

At the bottom of this post shows the neighboring cabin behind the cottage, which has no protective granite along their shoreline.

I was told by the cottage owner that glass was found behind the cottage.

I'm not buying the Defense's "slingshot-physics", and Lt. Dunleavey shouldn't have, either.

IMHO.

The last photo shows the relative distances between the cottages that were also in peril that night.

(In order from left to right: Dr. Rock's cottage, Cabin with "ramp", Crash-Scene with barge).

chipj29 · 03-16-2010, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(Headline by The Citizen).

BTW: NHMP Sgt. David Ouelette (a chatty officer whom I've had the privilege of meeting) has testified to the alcohol found on board: it includes two bottles of vodka, one of which is a ½-gallon size!

Testimony included alcohol detected on the Captain's breath. How much "normally-odorless" vodka would it take to be "detectable"?

APS, as I have stated in this thread twice now, the finding of alcohol on the boat, while it may create suspicions, does not PROVE anything. No less than 2 different people have testified under oath as to the amount of alcohol consumed that night. As far as I am aware, neither testimony included anything about drinking on the boat.

SIKSUKR · 03-16-2010, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

In fair weather, Diamond Island is a near-daily destination of mine—and you can't miss the crash site.

Seen within a week of the crash, the outcropping is closer to 2½-feet tall. Somewhere in my old computer there's a photo that shows the rock with a scale—in feet—I included with the marks of the crash. (Which I now need to dig out).

For what its worth,I also saw the site within a week and the outcropping as you call it it closer to 5 feet.The photo you posted gives you the scale you seek.The windows would be about 3 feet high based on a 7 foot wall that they are in.From my observation the highest point is at least 50% taller than the windows.

lulu59 · 03-16-2010, 10:28 AM

2 hours.No verdict.The longer it goes the better it is for the defense.

Attorney James Moir hit it out of the park yesterday in his closing.Erica Blizzard was very composed,poised,remorseful and articulate.

A tragedy in every sense of the word.The nuances in this case are endless.

Hopefully justice shall prevail.

LIforrelaxin · 03-16-2010, 04:21 PM

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

Scupper · 03-16-2010, 05:58 PM

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

NoBozo · 03-16-2010, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

Rattlesnake Guy · 03-16-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

I had the pleasure of 3 jurys last summer. If they have to replace one of the jurors while they are in deliberation, they theoretically have to restart the deliberative process from scratch. Taking the day off may be more attractive than starting over or burning up an alternate.

Seeker · 03-16-2010, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

On one of my juror trials we skipped a day because the judge had to be somewhere, but we were told that up front. I'm editing because this was not while we were in deliberation. I would think that would make a difference.

secondcurve · 03-16-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Scupper's comments could be worded more compassionately, but unfortunately those are the facts.

Rattlesnake Guy · 03-16-2010, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker

On one of my juror trials we skipped a day because the judge had to be somewhere, but we were told that up front. I'm editing because this was not while we were in deliberation. I would think that would make a difference.

We had a judge absent one of the days of our deliberation. He had another judge stand in while we worked. We actually gave our verdict to the pinch hitting judge.

Resident 2B · 03-17-2010, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Scupper,

Everyone should let the jury decide on the facts. This includes this you, a very opinionated, first-time poster.

Freedom of speech is one thing, deciding one's fate without complete knowledge is another. This is America. Let the process work. You are not part of this process, nor am I.

If you do not like this, please quickly go very far away. We are, for the most part, very fair people and we do not need your obviously, swayed opinion. There is too much pain on both sides of this for anyone like you, a first time poster, to comment.

Save your mindless comments for the NH Legislature. They might think you are credible, we surely will not! This is not Manchester, the stomping ground of WinnFabs. We are people that know the lake.

I could care less if you do not like my opinion. It is more important to me to let the process evolve.

R2B

Heaven · 03-17-2010, 05:26 AM

If a juror had a death in the immediate family would they pause a day for that juror?

jrc · 03-17-2010, 06:04 AM

Wow, why the venom for Scupper? He is not trying to sway the jury, they shouldn't be reading this site.

I read Erica's own account of the night and the collision from the newspaper. It's pretty much says what Scupper said. He just added the pint size glasses, which I have no knowledge of.

Now I may be duped by Scupper, his explode comment regarding the boat, got an instant appluase from guess who, but that could be coincidence.

SAMIAM · 03-17-2010, 06:27 AM

Always suspicious when a new poster starts out with a highly charged subject. It's hard to take someone serious who hasn't posted enough to have a track record.....for example, a friend or family member of the prosecution could try and sway public opinion by coming on this forum.

Bear Island South · 03-17-2010, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

so if scupper had 366 posts, maybe it wouldn't be viewed as a bad comment.
to be asked to "GO AWAY" is ridiculous, I 'm sure we could look back on some of your posts and point the finger. Scupper is not the first to form a negative opinion on this thread.
Maybe there should be a warning for new members, your first few hundred posts should have a positive view.

sunset on the dock · 03-17-2010, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

so if scupper had 366 posts, maybe it wouldn't be viewed as a bad comment.
to be asked to "GO AWAY" is ridiculous, I 'm sure we could look back on some of your posts and point the finger. Scupper is not the first to form a negative opinion on this thread.
Maybe there should be a warning for new members, your first few hundred posts should have a positive view.

Though if you have something negative to say about winnfabs then negative first posts are not only allowed but encouraged.

john60ri · 03-17-2010, 08:25 AM

Hooray for Scupper! If his facts are accurate, this lady needs to go to jail. Her antics that night were like a drunken, grossly irresponsible teenager. And by the way, except for the Mt. Washington, I have NEVER been on a boat on the Lake.

Woodsy · 03-17-2010, 09:22 AM

WOW!!! You have to love the lynch mob mentality! I tried to stay out of it but this is getting a bit out of hand...

The prosecution has presented the worst case possible (for Erica) scenario as to the events that occurred that fateful night.... The defense has presented the best case possible (for Erica).... somewhere in the middle lies the truth!

The wheels of justice are in motion and it’s up to the jury to weigh in ALL of the evidence presented by both sides. We only know whatever the newspapers & television stations have reported.... a small fraction of what the jury heard for evidence. The rest is rumor, conjecture and opinion!

Anyone who formulates their opinion (on any subject) based solely on what has been reported in the news is a boorish unintelligent moron. Minds are like parachutes... they only work when they are open!

The jury will decide Erica's fate... not anyone on this forum. Nobody should take any delight regardless of the outcome of the verdict. Unfortunately there are a few folks here who will... (either side) and that is precisely whats wrong with the lake...

Woodsy

03-10-2010, 08:31 PM	#802
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,535 Thanks: 1,059 Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts	Tide change? This trial will take its own course. BWI levels now or old DWI percentages, reasonable or unreasonable speed, who was the Cappy or not, may or may not be brought before the jury. As an example for all to see, it will be an eye opener hopefully! Slowly but surely we are being shown that one's own behavior must be accounted for. The age of "It's not my fault" will hopefully be shown to be an unacceptable reason for unacceptable behavior. I am not convicting anyone with this statement, only saying that there was fault in this incident, and someone needs to take the responsibilty. Who do you think is responsible?

03-11-2010, 11:02 AM	#806
Just Sold Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart Posts: 2,612 Thanks: 1,082 Thanked 433 Times in 209 Posts	The defense's expert witness from JurisPro Expert Witness Directory's web site. http://www.jurispro.com/CaptainRobertCronin He is supposed to be testifying today. Northeast Watercraft Reconstruction Specialists investigates and reconstructs pleasure craft, personal watercraft and near coastal commercial collisions. These are the types of vessels the staff at NeWARS operate and are experts in and around. This allows NeWARS to provide the level of expertise expected in a watercraft reconstruction investigation. The NeWARS professional's has over thirty-five years of law enforcement experience and equivalent sea time, backed by a skilled technical staff that can investigate, analyze and reconstruct a watercraft collision and present the findings in court. Founder and lead investigator Robert J. Cronin is a USCG licensed Master with over twent-five years of full time law enforcement experience. Mr. Cronin has investigated over 700 collisions of various types ranging from industrial vehicle fatalities to his specialty of watercraft collision investigaton. Mr. Cronin is also a watercraft accident reconstruction training facilitor and instructor. NeWARS is a Newburyport MA based company and is available to travel as required. Come visit us at WWW.newars.com or Email Captain Robert Cronin at specialist@newars.com Resume: http://www.jurispro.com/files/docume...912-resume.pdf __________________ Just Sold At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata

03-11-2010, 04:12 PM	#811
LIforrelaxin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee Posts: 2,824 Thanks: 1,015 Thanked 880 Times in 514 Posts	Let this topic rest until the story is told Folks, everyone is throwing out conjectures and statements here. What we all have to understand and realize is that everything is based on circumstances and the facts behind them. If Ms. Blizzard is convicted then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show, she was negligent. Is she is not guilty then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show that she was not negligent. Either way what we really need to do right now is wait and see what all the facts are. Through following the case in the media we should be able to do that. But lets not argue over weather someone is drunk or impaired at BAC .12 or not... The fact is that is where her BAC was and the law says she was drunk. End of that story. Now listen to the rest of the facts in the case. People need to remember we can all talk and bicker about this case and in the end it really doesn't matter to us. However there is a family who has lost a daughter, one that had a daughter injured, and one that could loose a daughter to jail.....report and talk about facts please not conjecture. __________________ Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....

03-11-2010, 07:25 PM	#813
NoBozo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Portsmouth. RI Posts: 2,231 Thanks: 400 Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts	Accident Lets explore...and define this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident The Alternative is Deliberate. MY guess is the former. NB

03-11-2010, 08:15 PM	#822
Mink Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 753 Thanks: 59 Thanked 271 Times in 129 Posts	But it's a forum! getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness. As an aside, this past Sunday night two recent graduates of Norwell High school, home for spring break, (both 18) were travelling down a road very near my house. Both were drunk. The driver lost control on a curve where the speed limit is 25 and hit a tree -- killing the passenger -- his best friend -- while he walked away with only scratches. In jail and charged with drunk driving and involuntary manslaughter. Chillingly familiar tale in only a slightly different context. Two lives ruined. Two families grieving. There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

03-10-2010, 07:22 PM	#801
NoBozo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Portsmouth. RI Posts: 2,231 Thanks: 400 Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts	Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

The Following User Says Thank You to ApS For This Useful Post:
NoRegrets (03-11-2010)

03-11-2010, 10:56 AM	#805
NoBozo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Portsmouth. RI Posts: 2,231 Thanks: 400 Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts	I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water. Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering. It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mink Islander For This Useful Post:
hancoveguy (03-11-2010), secondcurve (03-11-2010)

03-11-2010, 01:20 PM	#809
Newbiesaukee Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Coral Gables, winter; Long Island, summer Posts: 1,349 Thanks: 922 Thanked 569 Times in 295 Posts	Certainly I have not always been perfect piloting my boat...but tragic events such as we are discussing do serve to remind us the tremendous responsiblity we assume when we get behind the wheel...boat or car. Terrible things can happen to anybody, all we can do is to mitigate risk. Not drinking and driving, paying attention to weather conditions, etc are ways to minimize the chances that tragic events can occur. Our actions do have consequences.

The Following User Says Thank You to alsadad For This Useful Post:
Newbiesaukee (03-11-2010)

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (03-11-2010), Happy Gourmand (03-12-2010), ishoot308 (03-11-2010), NoRegrets (03-12-2010), robmac (03-11-2010), rockythedog (03-11-2010), superdawgfan (03-11-2010)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ishoot308 For This Useful Post:
codeman671 (03-11-2010), robmac (03-11-2010)

03-11-2010, 07:39 PM	#816
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,535 Thanks: 1,059 Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts	I am sure that the judge's charge to the jury was clear.

03-11-2010, 07:40 PM	#818
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,408 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	And I am sure that those on the jury don't even know about this forum. If they knew anything about the case, they wouldn't be picked and if they read this forum, they couldn't miss reading SOMETHING about it.

The Following User Says Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (03-11-2010)

03-11-2010, 08:52 PM	#824
LIforrelaxin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee Posts: 2,824 Thanks: 1,015 Thanked 880 Times in 514 Posts	So here are some Articles after googling "Erica Blizzard Trial" http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...95/1298/UPDATE What I found most interesting in this article, is that Ms. Shinopolus, was also legally drunk but yet testified that she only had a beer and two mixed drinks over 4 hours leading up to the crash. Of course she also according to this article states that she remembers nothing of the crash. Here are some other well written articles: http://wbztv.com/wireapnewsma/Surviv...2.1553781.html http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...template=page2 Take the time to read what is out there from a simple google search... it is all interesting to digest. But the other thing I have noted about all this information is you definitely need to digest it. And understand what is involved here. I wish I could have take the time to go to this trial, to hear all the testimony but I am making do with what I can get from the media. And so far I have convinced my self of several things based on the facts... Not on conjecture or speculation.... The facts are there, in between the line of BS the reporters fill the page with you just have to look.... But as I said in an early post I am not going to put anything out there until this is all over and I have digested as much as I can. The only thing I will say at this moment is I am disappointed with the judge. It appears that while everyone else involved in the trial went and viewed the wreckage Ms. Blizzard was allowed to stay behind. I believe that the jury needed to see Ms. Blizzards reactions to the wreckage, which she apparently has never had to face. __________________ Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to secondcurve For This Useful Post:
Misty Blue (03-12-2010), Pine Island Guy (03-12-2010)

03-12-2010, 06:34 AM	#829
SteveA Deceased Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Gilford, NH Posts: 2,311 Thanks: 1,070 Thanked 2,054 Times in 497 Posts	Citizen used jury photos... I wonder if this will turn out to be a basis for an appeal from either side. http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...892/-1/CITNEWS Looks like the paper messed up. __________________ "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry he'll be a mile away and barefoot!" unknown

03-12-2010, 08:28 AM	#831
Happy Gourmand Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ruskin FL Posts: 1,025 Thanks: 187 Thanked 322 Times in 179 Posts	Sad situation no matter the outcome But the fact of the matter is..... the only place the facts are coming out in in the courtroom. I'm old enough and like to think I'm wise enough to take "facts" reported by the media with a grain of salt. Conjecture, speculation and heresay will have no bearing on the outcome of this case. I don't know the facts in this case, and, most likely, neither do most of you. I am confident that justice will be served. Some of us will agree with the outcome, some of us won't. Either way, my thoughts and prayers are with all of the families affected by this tragic situation. Their lives will never be the same.

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Happy Gourmand For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (03-12-2010), chipj29 (03-12-2010), LIforrelaxin (03-12-2010), VtSteve (03-12-2010), Woodsy (03-12-2010)

03-12-2010, 12:25 PM	#834
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,526 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	...blame it on Bush! Back on June 15, 2008, when this Diamond Island tragedy occurred, there were newspaper reports that the Father's Day prank was all about setting up, in the Governor's Island yard, some life-size, stand-alone, silhouette cardboard photos of President George W Bush with Dad's photo attached over the president's face. It was just a fun type of a family prank. So, let's blame the whole mess on Bush.....he caused it! ...... Today's March 12 www.cmonitor.com has a 12:47-pm update on today's Friday trial hearing. __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! Last edited by fatlazyless; 03-12-2010 at 01:01 PM.

The Following User Says Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
secondcurve (03-12-2010)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (03-15-2010), Resident 2B (03-12-2010)

03-12-2010, 06:08 PM	#840
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,084 Thanks: 1,267 Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts	If Erica blizzard wasn't driving the boat her attorney wouldn't have tried to throw out the BAC evidence against her. If there was something mechanically wrong with the boat I think a strong argument can be made that her alcohol impairment contributed to her inability to compensate for the boat's mechanical difficultly. However, it is pretty obvious that this isn't about a mechanical problem.

03-12-2010, 07:54 PM	#842
NoBozo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Portsmouth. RI Posts: 2,231 Thanks: 400 Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts	It's about missing (or hitting) the island by a couple of degrees on a compass course from the starting point. What amazes me is all the Experts here... who have Never navigated a boat under those conditions...yet they are Armchair Experts. Yea Yea..get me now. NB

03-12-2010, 08:01 PM	#843
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	People are human I know many people aren't seasoned night boaters, some are, most aren't. I was in a situation last year when just before heading home, a fairly dense fog descended over the lake. Not rainy or cold, just very dense fog. My GPS was not getting a proper signal, which is another story for another time Anyway. There is a large reef about a mile out that ultra safe boaters (me) always go wide around and not cut inside to shore. I've traveled it quite frequently, but when I could see the lighted buoy. I could make out one faint light, but not the other. I slowed to headway speed and fixed on the light I could see. The GPS came back on finally, so I could see my tracks. Good thing. I was only about 100 yards from the Inside of the buoy I was to be Outside of I putted around to it, and the next outside marker and headed around the proper wide route. If I had been on plane using my instincts, I'd probably have ground on the reef. My mind told me I did not know where I was exactly at that point, so I slowed to a crawl. Sometimes, it doesn't take drinking to cloud judgment (I had not and was not drinking). Sometimes all it takes is a carefree attitude and over confidence. Perhaps distractions of others. It happens. I'm pretty anal about how I boat, I always have a lookout, and Never assume I know exactly where I am. I look for landmarks, lights, points of reference. It's scary in the fog, and nobody should be out bounding about on the water in it. Let's leave the legislative crap to those that have nothing else better to do than make silly arguments. This is boating 101 we're witnessing here, unfortunately, in a courtroom setting. It's also so sad for the parties involved. People not involved should take heed and learn from this, not throw grenades and kick in the darkness.

The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (03-15-2010)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to codeman671 For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (03-15-2010), Mink Islander (03-14-2010), VtSteve (03-12-2010)

03-12-2010, 10:16 PM	#847
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	This is what the bucks are for http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...94/1298/UPDATE FLL, this one's for you. Hogwash, but good for questions in the jury's mind.

03-12-2010, 10:35 PM	#848
Mr. V Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton Posts: 1,326 Thanks: 61 Thanked 235 Times in 159 Posts	The old "blood loss" argument. Cute. We'll see if the jury buys it. Bet they don't ...

03-13-2010, 09:47 AM	#850
Mr. V Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton Posts: 1,326 Thanks: 61 Thanked 235 Times in 159 Posts	The argument of the defense would be laughable, were the matters at hand not so serious. Now, I know that juries are not supposed to read newspaper articles or talk to people about issues presented at the trial; in theory, it prevents them from considering anything other than what they hear in the courtroom. But if one of them were to stray from this admonition and spend twenty seconds doing a google search, do you know what they'd find" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_b...lcohol_content Bam!

03-13-2010, 12:25 PM	#851
Newbiesaukee Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Coral Gables, winter; Long Island, summer Posts: 1,349 Thanks: 922 Thanked 569 Times in 295 Posts	The answer is not so simple.... I also tried to investigate this on the internet. The Wiki answer is simplistic and assumes that there is a fixed and unchanged BAC. If this were true, then losing blood would NOT affect BAC. But this is not the real world situation. There are legitimate questions regarding how blood loss and shock could affect BAC. BAC is obviously related to the speed with which alcohol is absorbed into the blood (where it is measured) from the stomach/GI tract. If, for example, a person ingests alcohol and then almost immediately gets into an accident resulting in cardiovascular shock, then the alcohol absorption would be delayed. A blood sample taken very soon after an accident might have a low BAC because the alcohol has not yet been absorbed into the blood and cannot be measured.. As the person recovers, the alcohol is later absorbed so that 3 hours later the BAC is actually HIGHER than at the time of the accident. This kind of argument and data are on the internet. The argument that the defense has used in some of these DUI cases is that even though the later BAC is high, at the time of the accident, the alcohol has not yet entered the bloodstream. Therefore, it had not reached the brain and there was no impairment at the time of the accident even though the BAC well after the accident might be high. I am not an attorney, I have no personal interest in this case and I agree that we should wait for all the information to be presented and wait for the jury make its statement. The circumstances in the case may well be different. Even though the defense toxicologist may be a hired gun, a few minutes on the internet can determine she does have real credentials. Whether what she says is true in this particular case is certainly arguable and the prosecution must argue it. My whole point is that things which seem simple and obvious are not always so. And Wikipedia does have its limitations.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Newbiesaukee For This Useful Post:
ishoot308 (03-13-2010), LIforrelaxin (03-15-2010), Pineedles (03-13-2010)

03-13-2010, 09:37 PM	#853
CGI3 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 91 Thanks: 135 Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts	How come they didn't subpoena the guest check from the restaurant they dined at? Seems like a no brainer to me. From my understanding restaurants have to keep all records for 3 years? Samiam, true?